Subscribe To

Monday, July 30, 2018

A little less than a year ago, I
sent Gary North an email about Jordan Peterson. I stated that I had become
concerned about the Jordan Peterson "bandwagon."

The writer lists Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Lew Rockwell, and
yours truly as examples of those on the “bandwagon.”

After expressing my concern re
Peterson’s comments on the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, etc., I said to Dr.
North, “Without sounding too dramatic, before this gets out of hand, someone
needs to write an exposé on him. I'm not the guy, but I'm thinking you might be
or know someone that is….

He didn’t take up the challenge,
but he did reply (and gave me permission to pass on his comments) with this:

"Just another liberal.They
are like cockroaches. Step on one, and four more appear.

A psychology professor who has taught at Harvard and now
Toronto…a liberal?To paraphrase Captain Renault: I'm shocked! Shocked to find that psychology
professors at major western universities are liberal!

"What I do not understand is why any Bible-believer pays any
attention to such people.But they
do."

Of course, I believe there are many Bible-believers who do
not understand why any Bible-believer would pay any attention to Gary North
when it comes to the Bible….

Well, the good news is there is now
an exposé, if you will, on Peterson from a major Christian organization.

It’s not quite as in-depth or
extensive as I’d like it to be, but it does a great job of finally providing an
analysis of Peterson for the Christian community from a Christian perspective.
Please take a few minutes to read it. …I give Peterson credit for being
excellent on several subjects/issues. It's just that he's awful when it comes
to Christianity.

Why any Christian would look to Peterson to be good on Christianity is beyond me…but
anyway…. Following is my reply, in total (with some editorial comments
inserted), after which I will add some further comments:

I do not understand why it is
important to turn Peterson into an "either / or" box: either he is
100% right on everything or he is not worth listening to at all.

"Is Genesis psychology or
history?"Why can't it be
both?Why does it take an atheist to
elucidate the idea that God may have put more in Genesis than mere history,
that God might have offered a meaning and depth to the narrative far greater
than the mere recitation of facts and timelines?

Peterson isn't a theologian, he
isn't a historian, he isn't an archeologist, he isn't an evolutionary
biologist.He is a psychologist, and he
has brought to life meaningful depth in these Biblical narratives.When it comes to the psychological aspects of
his lectures, I find nothing blasphemous in this (I am sure there might be something,
but little).

Unless there are some Christians who believe that God isn’t the author of human psychology?

Perhaps Christian critics can spend
more time evaluating the value in Peterson's psychological interpretation and
less time worrying about adding the years since Adam.

Because adding the years since Adam may be the least
important religious aspect of the book of Genesis.

Is there value in knowing something
more about Cain and Abel beyond who killed who?It seems to me, yes.Why did it
take an atheist to popularize this?Why
are Christian leaders angry (to the extent that some are)?I don't know; I wonder if it isn't, instead,
jealousy.

Someone has the courage to say the
things Peterson says about our social situation, the trend in university,
etc.Things that need saying, things
that Christian leaders should have been saying all along.Why not just accept that this is a pretty
good day's work.

As you know, I do not get into theological
discussion at the blog, so I have not commented one way or another on
Peterson's theological views.I wouldn't
bother listening to him or discussing him if this was my purpose.

Because I do not look to Peterson as a theologian.(Hint: in case you missed it…he also never
once has claimed to be.)

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

I know full well how hazardous an
enterprise it is to set sail on the controversial and disputed sea of
Scriptural interpretation….

Yes, same here.This
is one reason (of many) that I strongly prefer to keep theological discussion
off limits.I know this is difficult to
do, given the topics at this post, and I appreciate that you all respect this
desire.As you know, my intent behind
these topics is to examine the ramifications of broad religious issues on the
social, governance, and political aspects of society.

I guess today I am going to somewhat cross that line.The reasons are twofold: first, the examination
Casey takes on is precisely on the point of freedom; second, the topic is one
of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and misused regarding the Christian
take on government.

The topic?In two
words: Romans 13.Casey offers a full
examine of both Old and New Testament Scripture regarding kings and government
authority, as a few verses should not be taken in isolation.

Old Testament

Casey begins with the go-to chapter, 1
Samuel 8.To summarize: Israel had
no king; up to this point the governance was provided by God and by
judges.The Israelites demanded a
king.God, recognizing that the
Israelites were rejecting Him, permitted them to take a king – but only after
warning of the usurpations that the king would impose: taxes, mandatory
service, etc.

The subsequent history of the kings
of Israel, from Saul, through David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, followed by the
division of the kingdom is very far from edifying and can be seen as the
fulfillment of God’s warning delivered through Samuel.

The book of Hosea, in chapter 8, touches on this idea of God
permitting, but not approving: “They have set up kings, but
not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.”

New Testament

Regarding the life of Jesus, Casey offers…

…we can see immediately that his
very life was bookended by acts of political significance, from King Herod’s
murderous intentions at his birth to the final drama of his politically
inspired execution.

This is the lens through which all Scriptural discussion of
kings and earthly authority should be viewed.Casey offers that the New Testament is a target-rich environment when
one wants to find passages regarding kings and government; he limits himself to
five.I will touch on only a couple of
these.

Monday, July 23, 2018

I have skipped ahead to Casey’s review of the European
Middle Ages.His first chapter regarding
this period is entitled “Christianity,” as seems appropriate if one is
discussing freedom’s progress in the Middle Ages.

For its first three hundred years, Christianity was a
non-establishment religion.Christians
learned to live beyond the action of the state, without state protection, and
even had to struggle against the state:

These three centuries established
an abyss between the domain of government and the domain of religion….

When Constantine turned to Christianity, much of his reason
was for the support that this religion could bring to the Imperial State.Initially, Caesaro-Papism (with the head of
state also head of the Church) held sway.This arrangement continued in the East until the fall of Constantinople
in 1453.

In the post-Roman West, the story
was somewhat different.

In the wake of the Rome’s demise, barbarian kingdoms emerged
– Visigoths, Franks, Lombards.As tribes
accepted Christianity, for a time Caesaro-Papism continued.However from the eleventh century onward,
this would all change.

Tom Palmer regards Gregory VII’s
issuance of Dictatus Papae in 1075,
in which the independence of the Church was announced, as “the first of the
most significant moments of the past thousand years.”

The power of the Church gradually increased in the
subsequent years, such that papal power came to know no national bounds in
wielding imperial authority.While
ecclesiastical independence was a welcome event, it seems to have consumed itself
in power, coming “to a shuddering halt with the onset of the Reformation.”

Setting aside the religious and theological issues, this
result allowed for a return of local Caesaro-Papism, primarily in the areas
under the sway of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but also in many Catholic regions
as well.This result also gave birth to
what we now know as the modern state:

The modern state, in the form in
which we have come to know it – the sole sovereign power in a defined
territory, exercising a monopoly on (allegedly) legitimate violence, with the
power to commandeer the resources, including the persons, of its citizens – had
come into existence.

There was no “state,” as we know it, until the
Reformation.Again, set aside the
theology; this is something worth understanding for those concerned about
liberty…it seems to me.Of course, the
Church was not faultless in bringing on this result, as noted by Casey.

In any case, Casey is getting too far ahead in the
story.While Christianity had no
immediate impact on the political environment, it did establish fundamental
building blocks for what would become subsequent political thought.Casey offers three important factors:

…first, the idea that there are two centres of human allegiance;
second, the development of the gold and silver rules, together the rule of reciprocity, as the basis of
human conduct; and third (and for my purposes in this history, most
importantly) the value of the individual
as a creature made in the image and likeness of God, whose ultimate goal is
to know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him in the next.

Casey examines each of these in turn – as will I
shortly.However a few interesting
points are raised: to the first, competing and decentralized governance
authorities; to the second, the silver rule is insufficient; to the third…this
one is interesting.

If the purpose of “individual” is to “know, love, and serve
God in this life and be happy with Him in the next” (as opposed to “anything
peaceful”), is it appropriate to carry forward the concept of “individual”
absent this purpose?The individual
minus God equals…what, exactly, to a political theory based on the
individual?Curious.

When I began this blog, my political philosophy was about as
dogmatically libertarian and individualistic as could be.No one can be judged but the individual; no
one can act other than as an individual…. I could defend the undefendable with
the best of them.

I remember conversations from long ago: thinking about
people in groups is the first step toward genocide; valuing any political unit
beyond the individual was a path to hell. “No it isn’t; you are just being politically
correct.”I don’t think so.“Well, you may not think so, but you are.”Or how about this: “there is no racism.”Well, I know of the results of racism – or whatever
you want to call this idea of deciding people’s fate by putting them in
groups.“Yes, but not in this country.”

One day I was challenged to take on Hoppe in the same way I
took on the left-libertarians.Well…you know where this road has led: it takes a little “thick” to make
libertarianism work; if everything is “the individual,” then what we get is the
state.Not that I have fully reconciled
this with what I still believe to be the danger of considering people in groups
– there is a danger.

Well I guess

We all have these feelings

We can’t leave unreconciled

The Church?If I described my denominational make-up,
most of you would wonder how I didn’t end up in the funny farm…or maybe you
would finally have the confession you need to conclude that which you already
suspect: the funny farm is where I belong.This post is probably convincing you of the same.

There is much that I have read so far from Casey’s book that
buttresses my views – my views as you have come to know these via this
blog.But, I will also be challenged by
Casey.Challenged about individualism;
challenged about the Middle Ages; challenged about the Church; challenged about
things I am yet to read.I am not saying
all of my views will change.I am just
saying I will be challenged.

I think it may be possible, through Casey’s work, to
reconcile and clarify many things about my thinking about the entire road from
the Middle Ages through the Reformation, Renaissance, Enlightenment Classical
Liberalism, and Libertarianism.In other
words, reconcile my views about “group” (both the good and bad side) with the
value I place on the individual; reconcile the fact that I find both liberty
and domination (libertarianism and communism) as a result of the Enlightenment.

I will push back.I
just don’t know that I will win.Let me
say this differently: I will win if I approach Casey with a reasonable amount
of openness, because if I do this…then I will win – whether my views change or
not.I will lose if I stick to my views
regardless of Casey’s presentation.

Now…I expect I will give as much as I will take…maybe.In one page, Casey demonstrates that he understands
more about whatever he is writing about than I demonstrate in any 20 blog
posts.Let’s just say I am attempting to
punch above my weight class.

Conclusion

We can walk our road together

If our goals are all the same

We can run alone and free

If we pursue a different aim

Let’s see how I do.Again, I am not saying that Casey will win on every argument.What I am saying is that it is incumbent on
me to argue fairly and honestly.

I know many of you will hold me accountable – from both
sides: the more “libertarian” of you on the one side, and the more “conservative”
of you on the other.I hope none of you have
to hold me more accountable than I hold myself.

Let the truth of Love be lighted

Let the love of truth shine clear

Sensibility

Armed with sense and liberty

With the Heart and Mind united

In a single perfect sphere

Postscript: Whichever
one of you convinced me to buy this book, I don’t like you very much right now!

Friday, July 20, 2018

Jordan Peterson gives a very nuanced view about Trump and
America; the last US election; a realistic view of politics and politicians;
the most important thing a president can do (which Trump has done):

He has not embroiled the US in an
additional stupid war….How do you gauge the success of any American
president?Not engaging in a stupid war
is a nice start.

Peterson is not looking for reasonable discussion by
politicians, but “reasonable stupidity” from politicians.Truly incisive.

The one thing Peterson does not capture is the ramifications
if the left doesn’t change its ways and the chaos and violence that will then
ensue.But I think he has been clear
enough on this point elsewhere.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

When it comes to this blog, I don’t like being tied
down.What do I mean?I have been asked to co-author papers, even
books; submit articles to libertarian publications; write my own book; even
“clean up my room,” meaning perhaps better organize blog posts to make certain
ones easier to find.

Well, I am about to enter this uncomfortable zone again, via
Gerard Casey’s exhaustive work.Approaching 900 pages, Casey explores the progress of freedom (the
question mark is deliberate), beginning 200,000 years ago.At least he is merely going to review human liberty, leaving the freedom of flora
and fauna to others!

Anyone who has heard Casey speak knows of his wonderful
sense of humor, and certainly this comes through in the Preface.For example, in response to many Brits not
knowing which Duke of Normandy invaded England and became its king, Casey
offers:

…as Will Rogers noted, “Everybody is
ignorant, only on different subjects…

Per Oscar Wilde:

“In England, at any rate, education
produces no effect whatsoever,” before adding, gratefully, “If it did it would
prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of
violence in Grosvenor Square.”

Two out of three teenage Americans can’t place the Civil War
within 50 years of its occurrence; one in five cannot say who America fought in
World War II.

Memory is how we transmit virtues
and values, and partake of a shared culture.

Of course, a culture is stronger if the memories
are accurately transmitted and proper lessons are learned from this.Far from being a failure of the education
establishment, Casey rightly labels this ignorance of history as education’s
crowning achievement.

Casey offers four concepts of liberty to contrast with his
view of liberty – “thin” liberty as he refers to his view:

Metaphysical
Liberty: Metaphysical liberty can be understood as encompassing freedom of
the will in some sense or other.

How “free” is free will, if at all?Whatever one’s view on this matter, much of
the social and legal structure of society collapses completely to the extent
the concept of free will in action is dissolved.In any case, this is not the notion of
freedom that Casey is chasing in this book.

Liberty
as autonomy: where autonomy is to be thought of not merely as the absence
of constraint but rather as the ability to set one’s goals in a way that is
genuinely in accord with one’s status as a rational being.

…nothing outside of oneself can be
allowed to determine one’s actions in any way.

This isn’t what Casey is after, either.Goods inform our choices; in my way of
thinking, reality always gets in the way of my free exercise of actions.

Republican
or neo-Roman liberty: …as in the writings of Cicero…one is thought to be
free if one is part of and able to participate in a political structure in
which no other person has the political or legal power to determine one’s
actions.

Sounds kind of like classical liberalism.So what gives?While classical liberalism is concerned with
the use of force or the threat of its use as the only constraint, this
neo-roman concept views that dependence itself is a source and form of
constraint.Not for Casey.

Substantive
(or thick) liberty: …not just as the absence of external constraints on my
actions outside the scope of the zero-aggression principle but as a lack of
anything that limits my actual choices.

I think no clarifying statements are needed for this one.

Casey is focused on thin liberty:

…to the extent that an agent is
unconstrained in his actions by force or the threat of force, he is free…

Incapacity to attain a goal is not a constraint; freedom is nothing
more than “independence of the arbitrary will of another,” as Hayek puts it.

Thin liberty is defined by “not”: not killing, not injuring,
not stealing, etc.This is justice.Thick liberty requires, forcefully, helping
the poor and disenfranchised.

Casey will explore the slow emergence of the free
individual, freeing himself from group identity and groupthink.While he sees this freedom of the individual
as fundamental for libertarians, he offers that “liberty is the lowest of social values, lowest in the
sense of being most fundamental, a sine
qua non of a human action’s being susceptible of moral evaluation in any
way at all.”

Citing Murray Rothbard, “Only an imbecile could ever hold
that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end in life.”Liberty does not automatically mean random
individuals living in the wilderness, atomized individuals without any social
connection or hierarchy.

Conclusion

Casey’s book traces history with one focus in mind – the
“fitful journey” of liberty.He realizes
and admits that this approach is biased.So what?Everyone’s approach to
history is biased.Casey’s is biased
toward this singular focus: liberty.To
which I say, thank God: 900 pages is
long enough!

Casey has allowed the reader the liberty to read the book in
order or skip to any section that catches the reader’s interest.I will take advantage of this freedom and
begin with the chapters that cover the medieval period.